SHELDON KIRSHNERhttp://sheldonkirshner.com
JournalThu, 24 May 2018 14:00:32 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.6The Chinese Exclusion Acthttp://sheldonkirshner.com/the-chinese-exclusion-act/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/the-chinese-exclusion-act/#respondThu, 24 May 2018 14:00:32 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23697The United States has always taken pride in being a democratic haven for the oppressed, a place where persecuted minorities like Jews could begin life anew. But for centuries, American society was racist to the core. A case in point is The Chinese Exclusion Act, signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882. Under its draconian terms, laborers from China were barred from American shores, Chinese born in the United States were denied citizenship and Chinese people who went abroad on a trip were not allowed back.

Chester A. Arthur

This nasty piece of legislation remains unique in the annals of America, the only one which singled out an ethnic or religious group for such mistreatment. Astonishingly enough, it remained in force for 61 years, a stain on the fabric of American democracy.

How it came to be enacted is recounted in The Chinese Exclusion Act, a first-rate documentary by Ric Burns and Li-Shin Yu scheduled to be broadcast by the PBS network on May 29 at 8 p.m. (check local listings). An amalgam of vintage photographs, file footage and interviews with historians and researchers, the nearly two-hour-long film examines a period when white supremacy, xenophobia, racism and antisemitism were all too common and acceptable.

The first Chinese immigrants to reach the United States arrived in California in the mid-19th century, hoping to strike it rich during the Gold Rush. Four thousand trickled in during the first wave, followed by a further 14,000 who settled in San Francisco and environs.

At first, they were tolerated as hard-working immigrants. But in the gold fields, where competition was fierce, the Chinese were regarded as interlopers, and racial strife broke out. The newly-elected governor of the state, John Bigler, a bigot, fanned the flames of anti-Chinese sentiment. His objective was to rid California of Chinese.

John Bigler

During the U.S. Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln encouraged Chinese immigration and increased trade with China. The Pacific Railway Act of 1862 prompted 30,000 Chinese men to come to America to build a railroad from the east coast to the west coast. American exclusionists railed against the influx.

Once the railroad was built, Chinese workers spread throughout the west. With the passage in 1869 of the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to all American-born residents, Chinese newcomers headed to towns and cities in the northeast. By 1870, the United States was home to 64,000 Chinese, who were generally regarded as an alien and unassimilable minority. More to the point, white American workers of European origin feared that Chinese “coolies” would steal their jobs and leave them destitute.

Inevitably, anti-Chinese feeling erupted into violence. In 1871, race riots in Los Angeles ravaged Chinatown and claimed the lives of 15 Chinese in lynchings. During the 1880s, Chinese people were driven out of, among other places, Eureka, California, and Tacoma, Washington.

Anti-Chinese ordinances popped up all over the country. With the passage of the Page Act in 1875, Chinese women, portrayed as prostitutes, were effectively prohibited from joining their husbands in the United States. Democrats and Republicans were both in agreement on the need to keep Chinese immigration levels to a bare minimum. In 1879, Congress passed the Fifteen Passenger bill, which allowed harbormasters to turn away ships carrying more than 15 Chinese passengers. The Chinese Exclusion Act was replaced by the Geary Act in 1892.

Anti-Chinese feeling was rampant in the United States

Such was the intolerant social climate of the day that virtually every Chinese person was forced to live in this or that Chinatown. The campaign to segregate the Chinese coincided with the Jim Crow era, which humiliated and disenfranchised African Americans, and the placement of native American Indians on reservations.

In the face of these indignities, Chinese Americans fought back, launching 10,000 lawsuits in the quest for justice. In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 14th Amendment. Yet the battle was far from won. In 1917, immigration laws were tightened, in part, to keep out Chinese immigrants.

A Chinese American family in the early 20th century

With the Japanese invasion of China in the 1930s, the pendulum of American public opinion swung behind the Chinese. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 solidified that trend. On December 17, 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt repealed many of the discriminatory anti-Chinese laws. It was an important opening, a huge victory for Chinese.

The Hart-Celler Act in 1965 removed racist provisions in the immigration law, encouraging Asians to flood into the United States at unprecedented rates. But popular attitudes took longer to change. Chinese were still seen as “the other.”

It seems hard to believe today that Chinese Americans, like Jews, were once the object of such scorn, condescension, stereotypes and hatred. But more than 130 years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, times have indeed changed in America.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/the-chinese-exclusion-act/feed/0Israel’s Bipartisan Support in U.S. Appears at Riskhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/israels-bipartisan-support-in-u-s-appears-at-risk/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/israels-bipartisan-support-in-u-s-appears-at-risk/#respondWed, 23 May 2018 23:32:18 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23679Is bipartisan support for Israel in the U.S. Congress slipping? This appears to be the case, judging by a series of recent events.

A festive ceremony in Jerusalem on May 14 marking Israel’s 70th anniversary of statehood and the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem attracted a small delegation of Republicans from the Senate and the House of Representatives, but not a single member of the Democratic Party.

It’s not clear whether invitations were even issued to Democrats, or whether Democratic lawmakers decided to pass.

On the same day as these festivities unfolded, the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. celebrated these milestones with a big bash. Again, Democrats were conspicuous by their absence. Representatives Ted Deutsch (Florida) and Nita Lowey (New York) were invited, but could not attend due to previous engagements. Representative Jerrold Nadler (New York) told a journalist he had not been invited.

It has yet to be determined whether the Israeli embassy invited Democrats other than Deutsch, Lowey and Nadler. But at the end of the day, Democrats were no where to be seen at the embassy party, raising troubling questions whether Israel’s heretofore solid bipartisan base in Congress is at risk of crumbling.

Dianne Feinstein

On May 16, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (California) upset Israel by expressing disappointment that the U.S. ambassador at the United Nations, Nikki Haley, had vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an investigation into the deaths of 60 Palestinians attempting to breach the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

“I’m deeply disappointed by ambassador Haley’s decision to block a UN inquiry,” said Feinstein, sharply parting company with Israel, which opposes such an inquiry. “Without question there should be an independent investigation when the lives of so many are lost.”

Bernie Sanders

Another Democratic senator, Bernie Sanders (Vermont), who challenged Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016, also raised eyebrows in Israeli government circles by posting a video on social media demanding an end to Israel’s 11-year blockade of Gaza, its withdrawal from the West Bank and “the right (of Palestinians) to return to their former homes inside Israel.”

Feinstein and Sanders joined 10 other Democratic senators in writing a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urging him to take steps to improve the deteriorating situation in Gaza, populated by two million Palestinians, 70 percent of whom are refugees or descendants of refugees.

The rift between the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Democratic Party has been simmering for the past three years.

In March 2015, much to the annoyance of the Democratic president, Barack Obama, Netanyahu accepted an invitation from the Republican Speaker of Congress, John Boehner, to address Congress on the Iran nuclear agreement, which would be ratified several months later by Iran and the six major powers. Netanyahu, in concert with the vast majority of Republicans, denounced the accord, which the Obama administration staunchly supported and promoted.

It was not the first disagreement between Netanyahu and Obama. Throughout Obama’s eight-year term, they were often at loggerheads over Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Palestinian statehood.

Donald Trump

The new Republican president, Donald Trump, has been far more in sync with Netanyahu than Obama. Last December, he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, much to the outrage of the Palestinians and Arab states. And last month, he withdrew from the Iran nuclear accord, as Netanyahu had strongly urged.

As a result, Republicans generally tend to be more supportive of Israel than Democrats, particularly left-of-center Democrats like Sanders.

According to a Pew Research Centre survey conducted last year, 74 percent of Republicans sympathize with the Palestinians over Israel, compared to 33 percent for Democrats.

Yair Lapid, the leader of the middle-of-the-road Yesh Atid Party, warned last week that Netanyahu is “dangerously” aligning Israel with conservative and evangelical factions of the Republican Party, thereby widening the gap between Israel and the Democratic Party.

Menachem Begin

In fact, it was one of Netanyahu’s predecessors, Menachem Begin, the first Likud Party prime minister of Israel, who devised the strategy of forming alliances with evangelical Christians. Netanyahu has simply taken it to the next level.

Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, concedes that “devout Christians” have become the “backbone” of support for Israel in the United States. Indeed, David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, said recently that they back Israel with “much greater fervor and devotion than many in the Jewish community.”

Ron Dermer

Dermer, however, insists that Israel is intent on maintaining bipartisan support for Israel among Republicans and Democrats.

Mort Fridman, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, says that bipartisanship for Israel is critical. As he said recently, “The progressive narrative for Israel is just as compelling as the conservative one.”

Chuck Schumer

Bipartisanship is absolutely essential, says Senator Chuck Schumer (New York), the Democratic minority leader in the Senate. Speaking to the Israeli American Council at the Library of Congress last month, Schumer said, “If we don’t have bipartisan support for Israel, if Israel becomes the domain of one party or another, Israel will lose.”

The chairman of Israeli American Council, Adam Milstein, totally agrees with Schumer. “The U.S.-Israel relationship is — and must always be — rooted in bipartisanship.”

The former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, has cautioned Israel to be wary of “burning bridges” with the Democratic Party.

Dan Shapiro, center, takes part in an event in Israel with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin

“Israeli leaders may find it difficult to resist the temptation to ride this wave, embracing one aside in partisan U.S. political battles, as when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arranged his speech to Congress against the Iran deal solely with the Republican congressional leadership,” he wrote in a piece in the Atlantic in January. “But that approach comes at the cost of alienating even longtime allies across the aisle, and when the next crisis inevitably hits, Israel’s leaders may regret having burned those bridges.”

In closing, Shapiro warned Israeli leaders not to throw in their lot with the Republicans alone. This approach would be short-sighted and counter-productive, he said.

Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of Middle East politics and religion, died on May 19. He was, for some 80 years, a towering scholar of Islam, and informed scholarly, governmental and popular audiences alike.

The outlines of his long career are well known. Born to Jewish parents in London in 1916, Lewis received his Ph.D. from the University of London in 1939. Among his professors were Sir Hamilton Gibb, the famous Arabist, and Norman H. Baynes, the historian of Byzantium.

Bernard Lewis

After serving in the British army during World War II, Lewis became a professor of history at the School of Oriental and African Studies, part of the University of London, from 1949 to 1974. Subsequently, he was appointed professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and a long-term member of the Institute for Advanced Study. He retired from Princeton in 1986.

The author of some 30 books and 200 articles, his studies have been translated into more than 25 languages. Most deal with Islamic history, chiefly Arab and Turkish, although he also translated poetry from Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, and Persian into English. He had gained renown as a pioneer researcher in the vast Ottoman archives in Istanbul.

Among his seminal works are The Arabs in History (1950); The Emergence of Modern Turkey (1961); The Muslim Discovery of Europe(1982); The Jews of Islam (1984); Semites and Antisemites (1986); The Political Language of Islam (1988); Islam and the West (1993); Cultures in Conflict: Christians, Muslims and Jews in the Age of Discovery (1995); The Multiple Identities of the Middle East (1998); and From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East (2004). He published his own memoirs, Notes on a Century, in 2012.

One of Lewis’ many books

Most famous — and controversial — were the books What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002), and The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror (2003).

Lewis was also notable for his public debates with the prominent Palestinian academic Edward Said, a humanities professor at Columbia University whose 1978 book, Orientalism, helped establish the academic field of post-colonial studies. Said once charged that Lewis was “dripping with condescension and contempt toward the Arab world.”

Decades of discord between Lewis and Said led to a famous debate between them in the New York Review of Books in 1982. Said contended that Lewis had an “extraordinary capacity for getting everything wrong” and accused him of “suppressing or distorting the truth.” Lewis responded by calling Said’s comments “an unsavory mixture of sneer and smear, bluster and innuendo, and guilt by association.”

As Lewis became more of a public intellectual, his enemies, many of them acolytes of Said’s, increased the level of criticism, calling him an Orientalist, a bigot, an advocate of western imperialism, and so on.

Edward Said

Lewis also withstood criticism for his stance that the slaughter of Armenians starting in 1915 did not meet the strict definition of “genocide.” He acknowledged the huge loss of life among ethnic Armenians in what was then the Ottoman Empire, but he insisted that there was insufficient evidence linking it directly to orders by Ottoman rulers

Martin Kramer, who teaches Middle Eastern history at Shalem College in Jerusalem and is a former student of Lewis, noted that Lewis, four decades ago, “foresaw the rise of radical Islam … and much else besides.”

Kramer was referring to “The Return of Islam,” an article Lewis published in Commentary magazine in January 1976. He predicted that Islam’s conflict with Christendom and the West would once again take center-stage in global politics, because each “recognized the other as its principal, indeed its only rival.”

Lewis argued the roots of the battle lay in the similarities at the core of the two faiths, distinguishing them from other major religions. “You had two religions with this shared ideology living side by side,” he told National Public Radio in 2012. “Conflict between them was inevitable.”

In a 1990 article for the Atlantic entitled “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” he warned that “we are facing a mood and a movement far transcending the level of issues and policies and the governments that pursue them. This is no less than a clash of civilizations” — a term that three years later was popularized by the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington.

Lewis, therefore, considered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only one of many struggles between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 had already helped transform Lewis into a well-known academic, because it made Washington pay attention to political Islam. After 2001, Lewis observed, “Osama bin Laden made me famous.”

Lewis harbored few illusions about the “Arab Spring” of 2011. “Many of our so-called friends in the region are inefficient kleptocracies. But they’re better than the Islamic radicals,” he told Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor at the National Review. Democrats, however, he added, are best of all — “and they do exist.”

Bernard Lewis, right, chats with Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of Commentary magazine

Not that Lewis was infallible: For instance, in “The Revolt of Islam,” an article published in the New Yorker in November 2001, not long after the 9/11 attacks, he seemed to suggest that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may have been implicated in the Al-Qaeda operation and that he had what Lewis called “unconventional” weapons. This, we now know, was untrue.

In an essay in The Wall Street Journal in 2002, Lewis wrote that in both Iraq and Iran, “there are democratic oppositions capable of taking over and forming governments,” and predicted that Iraqis would “rejoice” over an American invasion. These scenarios did not happen.

Lewis summed up his whole career this way: “For some, I’m the towering genius,” he told the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2012. “For others, I’m the devil incarnate.”

Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.

Henry Srebrnik

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/the-amazing-life-of-bernard-lewis/feed/0Masada — A Beacon Of Freedom And Despairhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/masada-a-beacon-of-freedom-and-despair/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/masada-a-beacon-of-freedom-and-despair/#respondMon, 21 May 2018 14:15:30 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=22876The British playwright, composer and singer Noel Coward wrote in jest that only “mad dogs and Englishman go out in the midday sun.” His amusing lyrics came to mind during my last visit to Masada, the ancient Jewish rebel fortress conquered by a Roman army in 74 CE.

The Snake Path

Under a broiling sun in the Judean Desert, I walked up the serpentine Snake Path toward Masada, 450 meters above sea level. The path, rediscovered by Israeli archaeologists in 1953, is only for the physically fit. But even if you’re in tip-top shape, it is not recommended during the hot summer months, when the temperature hovers around the 40 degrees celsius mark. If you ignore this advice, it is advisable to start your climb early in the morning, or use the nearby cable car.

For better or worse, I started at around 10 a.m.

Walking up the Snake Path

The narrow trail is a jumble of loose rock and 700 rudimentary steps configured in switchbacks. As I ascended the mountain, regularly pausing to rest and drink water, wonderful panoramic views of dessicated grey ridges, the shimmering Dead Sea and the brooding Moab mountains in neighboring Jordan appeared.

The Dead Sea as seen from Masada

Drenched in perspiration despite the super dry heat, I made it to the summit in 45 minutes. Following a brief break, I was ready to tour Masada. I was a eager to revisit such attractions as the Northern Palace and the Bathouse, both of which had been extensively renovated.

Another section of the Snake Path

Masada, an Israeli national treasure, is a United Nations World Heritage site. It was built by a Hasmonean monarch and fortified by Herod, a Judean king, during the Second Temple period. Herod also added a palatial winter palace and cisterns.

When the Jews of Judea — a Roman province — rose up in rebellion against their Roman masters in 66CE, Roman legions responded fiercely. The Galilee was subjugated, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and Masada, held by Jewish rebels under the command of Eleazer Ben Yair, was besieged.

The desert fortress of Masada

The Roman siege of Masada, the final act in the Roman conquest of Judea, lasted a few months. The Tenth Legion, consisting of about 8,000 soldiers and led by Flavius Silva, prepared for battle by building eight camps, a siege wall, an earthen ramp and a battering ram. Realizing that the Romans had the upper hand, Ben Yair convinced 960 of his followers that death was better than surrender and enslavement.

Josephus

In keeping with his edict, all but several of its inhabitants committed suicide rather than fall into the hands of the Romans. The survivors, two women and five children who had hidden in cisterns during the final days of the Roman offensive, told their story to Josephus, a former Jewish commander in the Galilee who had accommodated himself to Roman domination. Josephus wrote about the fall of Masada in The Wars of the Jews, the only account of the Roman siege.

When the Romans left, Masada was uninhabited for hundreds of years until Christians built a monastery there during the Byzantine era. With the rise of Islam in the seventh century, the building fell into disrepair, becoming a flyblown relic of a murky past.

During the 19th century, British explorers toured Masada and a succession of European archaeologists excavated it. The Hebrew translation of The War of the Jews in the 1920s heightened interest in Masada. The Zionist movement regarded it as a symbol of Jewish courage and steadfastness in the face of great odds.

From 1953 to 1965, Yigal Yadin, an Israeli archaeologist and future politician, carried out major excavations at Masada. He discovered the skeletal remains of 28 people, found the ruins of many buildings, and stumbled upon thousands of artifacts, all of which provided scholars with a much clearer picture of life during the Roman siege.

Further excavations were undertaken by Ehud Netzer in 1989 and 1995.

Masada National Park was opened in 1966, and the first cable car was put into service in 1971, increasing tourist traffic. Until that year, the Snake Path in the east and the less challenging Ramp Path in the west were the only ways of accessing Masada.

Northern Palace

Shortly after reaching Masada, I stopped at the Northern Palace, its showpiece ruin. Incorporating Hellenistic and Roman architectural styles, it is built on three rock terraces supported by sturdy retaining walls. It contains private rooms, a patio and bathhouses whose walls are adorned with remarkably preserved frescoes.

The largest structure on the grounds, the Western Palace, is decorated with colorful mosaics and is built around a courtyard and pools.

The outlines of the Roman siege camp, from which the military assault was launched, are still visible, forming the world’s most complete surviving Roman siege system.

Outlines of Roman siege camp at Masada

The cisterns, which could hold 40,000 cubic meters of water, were dry on the day of my visit. The rugged landscape adjacent to the cisterns was awesome.

Masada, the last Jewish bastion to succumb to the Roman invaders, is filled to the brim with a profusion of splendid sights. Once a place of despair, it is now a beacon of freedom as Israel marks its 70th anniversary of statehood.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/masada-a-beacon-of-freedom-and-despair/feed/0Erdogan Picks A Fight With Israel Yet Againhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/erdogan-picks-a-fight-with-israel-yet-again/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/erdogan-picks-a-fight-with-israel-yet-again/#respondSat, 19 May 2018 15:55:15 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23613Once again, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is shooting from the hip, creating a diplomatic crisis with one of Turkey’s most important neighbors.

The volatile and authoritarian Turkish president did it again this week when he denounced Israel as a “terror state,” reiterated his allegiance to the Palestinian cause and downgraded Turkey’s loveless relationship with Israel, at least temporarily.

The irascible Erdogan was reacting to the deaths of 60 Palestinians from the Gaza Strip on May 14, the 70th anniversary of Israel’s statehood. Most of them were shot by Israeli forces as they tried to breach Israel’s security fence along the internationally-recognized border. They were taking part in the March of Return, a so-called “peaceful” series of weekly mass protests orchestrated by Hamas, the ruling authority in Gaza.

Hamas, which rejects Israel’s very existence and a two-state solution, has blood on its hands. During the second Palestinian uprising, Hamas dispatched suicide bombers to Israel, leaving a horrendous trail of death and destruction. Since then, Hamas has diverted scarce resources to wage war against Israel, much to the detriment of ordinary Palestinians.

The March of Return was launched on March 30. As its name implies, it was a public relations campaign to promote the “right of return” — the right of Palestinian refugees to reclaim their properties in what is now Israel and demographically convert the Jewish state into a Muslim state by means of the womb.

As polls suggest, the vast majority of Jews in Israel supported Israel’s defence of its sovereignty, though some asked whether Israel had used disproportionate force to repel Palestinians rushing toward the fence. Still, what country would remain passive in the face of an invasion by stealth aimed at undermining its national essence and integrity?

Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Erdogan — an ardent supporter of Hamas whose Islamist-style Justice and Development Party has been chipping away at Turkey’s secular character for the past 16 years — cannot understand Israel’s legitimate rationale for defending its border from its enemies. Or maybe, with general elections due on June 24, he is cynically playing to his conservative Islamic base.

Erdogan unloosed his stream of anti-Israel invective only two years after Turkey’s reconciliation agreement with Israel. “Israel is wreaking state terror,” he said. “Israel is a terror state. We will continue to stand with Palestinian people with determination.”

On May 18, at a special meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Istanbul, Erdogan sharpened his attack on Israel by comparing it to Nazi Germany. “There is no difference between the atrocity faced by the Jewish people in Europe 75 years ago and the brutality that our Gaza brothers are subjected to,” he claimed in a grotesque comparison. “I will say openly and clearly that what Israel is doing is banditry, brutality and state terror.”

Binali Yildirim

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim was on the offensive, too. He urged Islamic countries to reassess their ties with Israel. “Islamic countries should without fail review their relations with Israel,” he said in parliament. “The Islamic world should move as one, with one voice, against this massacre.”

Turkey’s deputy prime minister, Bekir Bozdag, declared a three-day mourning period in honor of the “martyred” Palestinians, many of whom were Hamas operatives under orders to break through the fence. As Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas official, correctly said, “This is not peaceful resistance.”

In rapid succession, Turkey recalled its envoys in Israel and the United States, Israel’s chief ally, and expelled Israel’s ambassador in Turkey, Eitan Naeh “for a while.” Israel, giving Turkey a taste of its own medicine, told Turkey’s consul in Jerusalem, who’s accredited to the Palestinian Authority, to leave. Turkey, in turn, ordered Israel’s consul general in Istanbul, Yossi Levi Safari, out of the country.

Yossi Levi Sfari

Meanwhile, at the airport, Naeh was inappropriately subjected to a strict security screening. The spectacle was witnessed by Turkish journalists, who had been invited to record the event. It reminded observers of a juvenile incident in 2010 during which Israel’s deputy foreign minister rebuked Turkey’s ambassador to Israel by deliberately seating him on a low chair.

By way of retaliation, Turkey’s charge d’affairs in Tel Aviv, Umut Deniz, was summoned to the foreign ministry in Jerusalem for a dressing-down, which was witnessed by members of the local press.

In a riposte, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blasted Erdogan, whom he described as one of Hamas’ “biggest supporters.” He added, “There is no doubt that he well understands terrorism and slaughter. I suggest that he not preach morality to us.”

As tensions rose, Erdogan, on a trip to London, met with representatives of Neturei Karta, an anti-Zionist group. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu chimed in by saying that Israel should be tried for “massacring” Palestinians, and that an international commission should hold Israel to account for its actions.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan meets anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews in London

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely branded Erdogan as a “dictator” and “neo-fascist” who’s leading Turkey to “insane extremism.” But she also called for calm. “When we have relations with Turkey, it’s not out of fondness and friendship. It’s about very important interests in the region. Turkey is a key state, all our aerial routes go through it, there are very deep trade relations.”

Tzipi Hotovely

Tourism Minister Yariv Levin urged Israelis to boycott Turkey. Science Minister Ofir Akunis recommended that Turkey be isolated and that Erdogan be exposed as an antisemite.

Two Israeli parliamentarians, Amir Ohana of Likud and Itzik Shmuli of the Zionist Union, went one step further. They announced they would submit a bill in the Knesset to recognize the “genocide” of Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turks in 1915, a very touchy topic in Turkey. Intelligence Minister Israel Katz and Education Minister Naftali Bennett said they would endorse the proposed legislation, which, if passed, would probably induce Turkey to sever diplomatic relations with Israel.

Turkey has had a mercurial relationship with Israel since 1949.

It was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel, but in 1980 it downgraded its relations with Israel for 15 years following the passage of a bill reaffirming Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem.

The Mavi Marmara

Israeli-Turkish relations flourished during the Oslo peace process, when Erdogan visited Israel on his first and only trip there. But during the first Gaza war in 2008 and 2009, Erdogan turned against Israel, condemning it a terrorist state. In May 2010, Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish vessel, the Mavi Marmara, which was attempting to break Israel’s siege of Gaza, and nine Turks aboard were killed. Turkey recalled its ambassador and ordered Israel’s ambassador to leave.

In 2016, after six years of on-again, off-again negotiations, Israel and Turkey finally reconciled and normalized their relations after Israel issued a formal apology and agreed to pay compensation to the tune of $20 million. Israel, however, refused to comply with a third Turkish demand — the lifting of the blockade of Gaza.

During the summer of 2017, Erdogan accused Israel of trying to “destroy the Islamic character of Jerusalem” in the wake of Israel’s decision to install metal detectors at entrances to the Temple Mount in East Jerusalem.

The Temple Mount complex in eastern Jerusalem

In September of that year, he warned Israel that its support for Kurdish independence in Iraq could affect bilateral relations with Turkey.

After U.S. President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December, Erdogan said, “Mr. Trump, Jerusalem is a red line for Muslims. This could lead us to break off our diplomatic relations with Israel.”

Shortly afterward, Erdogan said he would use “all means” to counter Trump’s decision. “Palestine is an innocent victim. As for Israel, it is a terrorist state, yes terrorist! We will not abandon Jerusalem to the mercy of a state that kills children.”

To which Netanyahu responded, “I am not used to receiving lectures about morality from a leader who bombs Kurdish villagers in his native Turkey, who jails journalists, who helps Iran get around international sanctions, and who helps terrorists, including in Gaza, kill innocent people.”

Last month, after Erdogan lambasted Netanyahu as a “terrorist” and “occupier,” Netanyahu countered: “Someone who occupies northern Cyprus, invades the Turkish regions (in Syria) and slaughters civilians in Afrin (again in Syria) — should not preach to us about values and ethics.”

After this testy exchange, Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan expressed regret that Israel had agreed to reconcile with Turkey. “Looking back, maybe the accord should not have been approved.”

Gilad Erdan

Erdan’s comments were echoed by Yair Lapid, the leader of the centrist Yesh Atid Party.

Erdogan’s verbal blasts notwithstanding, Israel has no intention of severing ties with Turkey. But the day may come when Erdogan will pull the plug. His base appears to be seeking a complete break with Israel.

So much for his credo that Turkey should have “zero problems” with its neighbors.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/erdogan-picks-a-fight-with-israel-yet-again/feed/0Kayak To Klemtuhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/kayak-to-klemtu/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/kayak-to-klemtu/#respondSat, 19 May 2018 15:09:59 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23411Zoe Leigh Hopkins celebrates Canada’s wilderness and its indigenous native culture in Kayak To Klemtu, a purebred Canadian movie opening in theaters on May 25.

This is an old-fashioned film in the best sense of its meaning. No violence. No sex. No nudity. No pyrotechnics. In short, no gratuitous distractions.

So refreshing.

The plot is as straightforward as a well-aimed arrow. In British Columbia, the Great Bear Rainforest is threatened by a proposal to build an oil pipeline through its pristine expanse. Its inhabitants are up in arms, certain that tankers and fuel barges plying the coastal waters of the Inside Passage will have a detrimental effect on their ancestral land and thus play havoc with their traditional fishing culture.

A public hearing to discuss the pipeline project is due to take place soon. Ella (Ta’kaiya Blaney), a 14-year-old native girl originally from the remote town of Klemtu, plans to present an environmental argument against it at the meeting. She was asked to do so by her uncle, Dave Bear (Evan Adams), a conservationist and tree hugger who has passed on his love of nature to her. Dave, portrayed both as a spiritual soul and an inept businessman, is seen in a series of flashbacks.

Ella and Don

A spirited young woman, Ella wants to prepare herself for the hearing by kayaking to Klemtu, a distance of 500 kilometres. Dave’s widow, Cory (Sonja Bennett), and her son by her first marriage, Alex (Jared Ager-Foster), have agreed to join Ella. Ella’s uncle, Don (Lorne Cardinal), a fisherman and Dave’s brother, tries to dissuade her from undertaking such a potentially hazardous trip. Ella will not be talked out of it. Resigned to her plan, Don teaches them the outdoor skills they will need to complete their trip successfully.

Dave

The threesome set off on a tranquil summer day, but soon run into problems. Alex wants to go back home and Cory is afflicted with a stomach ailment. The following morning, they discover that their food supply has been devoured by a bear. In short order, Don arrives to rescue them, and is cajoled into joining them. Nonetheless, he’s skeptical they will make it.

The cinematography alone is worth the price of admission. We’re treated to vistas of speckled clouds in a big sky, rocky shore lines, dense pine forests, schools of salmon, whales, a colony of seals and a bear approaching a waterfall. It’s a celebration of an unspoiled landscape that human beings should not be allowed to despoil through mindless pollution.

The glory of the outdoors

As the kayakers press on toward Klemtu and Ella’s anticipated appearance at the hearing, they weather torrential rains. In the meantime, Alex expresses a desire to live in Klemtu again, while Cory has an accident that sends her into a funk. Through this process, they bond, at least to some degree.

The film is much more than a travelogue. It’s about family and tradition, which are inextricably linked in this unadorned yet satisfying film.

Tellingly enough, Russia refrained from condemning Israel after it carried out massive air strikes in Syria against Iranian and Syrian targets on May 10. Russia, which has cordial relations with both Israel and Iran and a special relationship with Syria, issued an innocuous statement rather than a condemnation after Israel’s ferocious attack. Its deputy foreign minister, Mikhail Bogdanov, simply called for “restraint from all parties.”

Russia’s mild reaction must have come as a relief to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. Netanyahu spent 10 hours in Moscow on that day, conferring with Russian President Vladimir Putin and attending a Victory Day march marking the Allied victory in World War II.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin in Moscow on May 9, 2018

It was Netanyahu’s eighth visit to Moscow in three years. Next to the United States, Russia is the country to which he travels most frequently on business. The reason is clear. Russia is deeply invested in Syria, Israel’s hostile neighbor, and in partnership with Iran, Israel’s arch enemy, in protecting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government from rebels seeking his ouster.

Three years ago in September, Russia stepped up its military commitment to Syria, its oldest ally in the Arab world, by a significant degree. Syrian government forces were losing ground to rebel forces and Islamic State, and Assad asked Russia for assistance. Putin sent combat aircraft, maintenance crews and a contingent of soldiers to Syria to prop up his Baathist regime.

Bashar al-Assad

Thanks to Russia’s concerted air campaign, Assad gained the upper hand on the battlefield as his army regained lost territory. Assad also received vital assistance from Hezbollah, a Lebanese militia which fought a month-long war with Israel in the summer of 2006, and Iran, which opposes Israel’s existence.

Israel has not intervened in Syria’s civil war, except to respond to stray or deliberate shelling from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, or to provide humanitarian aid to some of the rebels. But the Israeli Air Force has repeatedly bombed Hezbollah weapons depots in Syria and Hezbollah arms shipments bound for Lebanon from Syrian territory.

The Golan Heights

Iran, the premier Shi’a power in the Middle East, has taken advantage of the Syrian civil war to consolidate its military presence in Syria. Iran has bases scattered across Syria, some of which are perilously close to the Israeli border on the Golan Heights. Israel, having vowed to stop Iran from entrenching itself on the Syrian side of the Golan, has bombed Iranian positions in Syria since February of this year, killing tens of its soldiers and advisors in a shadow war.

The Sea of Galilee faces the Golan Heights

In the wake of the last two Israeli bombings in April, Iran threatened to retaliate. Late last week, Iran’s Quds Force fired 20 rockets at the Golan, occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six Day War. The bombardment, which proved ineffectual, took place only hours after Netanyahu had returned from Russia. In Moscow, he informed Putin of Iran’s intention to strike Israel, and may well have told him that Israel would respond forcefully to an Iranian reprisal.

Russia, unlike the United States, is not Israel’s ally. But since Russia plays an increasingly important role in the Middle East, Israel has no alternative but to be on cordial terms with the Russians.

Given Russia’s central role in Syria, it was important for Israel to establish solid lines of communication with the Russians so as to avoid accidental clashes in the skies over Syria. Hence Netanyahu’s decision to meet Putin on a regular basis. As a result of their meetings, Israel and Russia reached de-confliction agreements, enabling Israel to continue bombing Hezbollah weapons convoys in Syria without Russian interference.

Russian Hmeimim air base in Syria

Despite these understandings, Israel and Russian almost came to blows in Syria in 2015, when the Israeli Air Force was on the verge of shooting down a Russian jet approaching Israeli airspace, says Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s former defence minister. At the last possible moment, Israeli and Russian officials made contact, the Russian plane changed direction and flew back to its Hmeimim base, and an international incident was avoided.

Avigdor Liberman

“What is important to understand is that the Russians are very pragmatic players,” Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman said recently at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “At the end of the day, they are reasonable guys. It’s possible to close deals with them, and we understand what is their interest. Their interest is very different from our interest, but we respect their priorities. We try to avoid direct frictions and tensions.”

Despite Israel’s web of understandings with Russia, tensions have emerged.

Last month, after Israel struck the T-4 airfield in central Syria, a base that houses elements of Iran’s Quds Force, Russia rapped Israel on the knuckles and summoned Israel’s ambassador in Russia for a verbal dressing-down.

In a telephone conversation with Netanyahu, Putin complained that Israel had not informed Russia of the strike in advance. According to the Russian Sputnik news agency, Putin also “stressed the fundamental importance of respecting the sovereignty of Syria, called for refraining from any actions that might further destabilize the situation (in Syria) and pose a threat to its security.”

Dmitry Peskov

Gary Koren, the Israeli envoy in Moscow, was called to the Foreign Ministry for a chat with Bogdanov, the deputy foreign minister. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Israel had not advised Russia of its strike, even though Russian advisors could have been present at the T-4 base, a “cause for concern for us.”

Netanyahu’s office “reiterated that Israel will not permit an Iranian military entrenchment in Syria.”

On the day this exchange occurred, the Russian embassy in Tel Aviv released a statement criticizing Israel for having condemned Syria for having carried out a chemical weapons attack.

Shortly after this, Liberman issued a warning regarding Russia’s purported plan to sell the S-300 air defence system to Syria. “What’s important is that (it) won’t be used against us,” he said, expressing concern that it would degrade Israel’s regional air superiority. “One thing needs to be clear: If someone shoots at our planes, we will destroy them.”

In response to Liberman’s threat, the Russian daily Kommersant, citing anonynmous military sources, said that an Israeli attempt to destroy the S-300 would be “catastrophic for all sides.”

Russia had agreed to sell the S-300 to Syria in 2010, but scrapped the sale due to Israel’s objections. Last month, however, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was reconsidering the sale in light of the air attack against Syria launched by the United States, Britain and France in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons.

On May 11, a member of Putin’s inner circle, Vladimir Kozhin, disclosed that Russia has no plans at present to supply Syria with the S-300. “So far, there has been no talk of deliveries of modern new systems,” he said.

Interestingly enough, Kozhin made this statement only a day after Israel bombed Iranian and Syrian bases in Syria.

Yuval Steinitz

Prior to these raids, Israeli Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz warned Syria that Israel would “eliminate” Assad, Russia’s ally, if he continued to allow Iran to operate in Syria. As he put it, “It’s unacceptable that Assad sits quietly in his palace and rebuilds his regime, while allowing Syria to be turned into a base for attacks on Israel.”

Concerned by the poisonous animosity between Israel and Iran, a rivalry which could lead to a region-wide conflagration, Russia has begun to position itself as a possible mediator.

Ali Shamkhani

Late last month, Russia hosted the ninth International Meeting of High Representatives for Security Issues in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. The day before the conference opened, the secretary of the Russian Security, Nikolai Patrushev, held separate meetings with the Israeli and Iranian delegates, Eitan Ben-David and Ali Shamkhani.

It’s unclear what these discussions achieved, but it’s clear that Israel’s conflict with Iran makes Russia very nervous and potentially imperils its interests in Syria.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/russia-and-israel-avoid-conflict-over-syria/feed/0Jubilation And Bloodshedhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/jubilation-and-bloodshed/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/jubilation-and-bloodshed/#respondTue, 15 May 2018 23:27:31 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23582It was a day of jubilation and bloodshed, a surrealistic commingling of events.

As the United States officially opened its embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, thereby fulfilling President Donald Trump’s campaign promise, Israeli troops, acting in self-defence, killed 60 Palestinians and wounded more than 1,300 from the Gaza Strip who had charged toward Israel’s border fence.

Israel’s fence along the Gaza border

In major West Bank cities, Palestinians took to the streets in anti-Israel and anti-U.S. demonstrations, but there were no fatalities.

It seemed as if a third Palestinian uprising had broken out.

“What a glorious day,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exulted in a reference to Israel’s 70th anniversary and Trump’s decision to transfer the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. “Remember this day! This is history!”

As Netanyahu gloated, Palestinians decried the casualty toll, the highest in a single day since the 2014 Gaza war. Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas contemptuously described the U.S. embassy in Israel’s capital as a “settlement outpost.”

The day began as 40,000 to 50,000 Palestinians, far lower than the 100,000 protesters expected, marched toward Israel at several points along its internationally-recognized border.

The March of Return was promoted by Hamas — the ruling authority in Gaza for the past 11 years — as a non-violent expression of the Palestinians’ desire to exercise their “right of return” to Israel and their rage over the expulsion and flight of 750,000 Palestinians in 1948 from their homes in what is now Israel. As well, the mass protest was a symbolic denunciation of Israeli statehood, Israel’s blockade of Gaza and U.S. partiality toward Israel.

In another respect, it was a crie de couer over the miserable conditions that prevail in Gaza.

Gaza is coping with a humanitarian crisis

Israel’s siege of Gaza, along with the three border wars that have erupted since 2008, have wreaked havoc on Gaza’s economy and infrastructure. The statistics are staggering. Approximately 39 percent of Gaza’s two million Palestinian Arabs live beneath the poverty line, with 80 percent of its civilians dependent on international food aid. Unemployment hovers around 43 percent. Much of Gaza’s water supply is contaminated by sewage and seawater. Shortages of clean water and fuel are exacerbated by poor health and education services.

In short, Gaza is gripped by a humanitarian crisis of the first order.

From the moment it got under way on March 30, the weekly March of Return was anything but peaceful, with a minority of Palestinian participants resorting to violence in a brazen attempt to tear down a perfectly legitimate border fence. In essence, Hamas — an Islamic organization that rejects a two-state solution and seeks Israel’s destruction — sought to achieve its ultimate objective by stealth and on the backs of ordinary Palestinians who have suffered so much.

Israel, obliged to protect its border and its population, deployed tear gas and live ammunition to disperse the marchers, some of whom were members of Hamas’ armed wing. In these clashes, 49 Palestinians were killed.

On May 14, during the latest march, a number of Hamas cells tried to breach the border. In one incident, Israeli troops blocked an incursion by eight armed Hamas operatives, killing all of them in a gun battle. Israeli tanks and aircraft destroyed several targets in Gaza.

Fence-cutting equipment found near the corpses of Palestinians trying to cross into Israel

Israel’s housing minister, Yoav Galant, threatened to resume Israel’s campaign of assassinations in Gaza if the violence continued. “If Hamas continues to make mistakes — Yahya Sinwar and (Hamas) senior officials will be signing their own death warrants,” he warned.

Playing with the lives of Palestinians, Hamas was acutely aware that Israel would be condemned for using lethal force to protect its sovereignty. In indignation, Egypt blasted Israel’s use of deadly force. Turkey and South Africa recalled their ambassadors in Israel. Branding Israel a “terror state,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, no friend of Israel despite a 2016 Turkish-Israeli reconciliation agreement, expelled the Israeli ambassador in Turkey. By way of retaliation, Israel expelled the Turkish consul in Jerusalem.

Yoav Galant

The United States, however, blamed Hamas for the rash of Palestinian deaths. “The responsibility for these tragic deaths rests squarely with Hamas,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said.

As Palestinians in Gaza bled, Jews in Jerusalem rejoiced.

Breaking with American policy, Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital last December. He did not explain whether his recognition applied to West or East Jerusalem, leaving the Palestinians fuming and the two-state solution at risk.

Israel annexed the eastern half of Jerusalem in the wake of the Six Day War. In 1980, Israel reaffirmed its annexation, prompting 16 countries that already had embassies in Jerusalem to place them in Tel Aviv. These nations were: Holland, Haiti, the Ivory Coast, Zaire, Kenya, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Jerusalem

With one fell blow, Trump reversed this political setback. Trump, unable to attend the ceremony marking the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, sent a delegation of relatives and colleagues. It consisted of his daughter and son-in-law, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process Jason Greenblatt and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. U.S. ambassador to Israel David Friedman hosted the event.

A small group of Republican Party politicians joined the festivities, not to mention Republican fundraisers like Sheldon Adelson and a gaggle of evangelical Christian pastors. Not a single Democrat showed up, underscoring a worrisome phenomenon — the crumbling of bipartisan support for Israel in the U.S. Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, though, issued a written statement of support: “Every nation should have the right to choose its capital. I sponsored legislation to do this two decades ago, and I applaud President Trump for doing it.”

Trump, in a video message, hewed to this theme. As he put it, “Today, Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s government. It is the home of the Israeli legislature and the Israeli supreme court and Israel’s prime minister and president. Israel is a sovereign nation with the right, like every other sovereign nation, to determine its own capital.”

Not everyone agreed.

Only 33 of 86 countries with diplomatic missions in Israel sent representatives to the ceremony. European foreign ministries criticized the U.S. decision as a violation of international law and an unwise move likely to exacerbate tensions.

Donald Trump and Mahmoud Abbas in Bethlehem last May

Kushner, in an upbeat assessment of his father-in-law’s decision to transfer the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, claimed that May 14 would be remembered as the day “the journey to peace started with a strong America recognizing the truth.”

U.S. Secretary of State Pompeo, who did not attend the ceremony, said, “We remain committed to advancing a lasting and comprehensive peace between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Pouring cold water on his statement, Abbas vowed that the Palestinians will not enter into peace talks with Israel if they are mediated by the United States “in any way, shape or form.” On May 15, he went one step further by recalling the Palestinian Authority’s envoy in Washington, D.C.

So much for Trump’s aspiration to sign the “ultimate deal” and settle the Arab-Israeli conflict.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/jubilation-and-bloodshed/feed/0Memoirs Of Life In Israelhttp://sheldonkirshner.com/memoirs-of-life-in-israel/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/memoirs-of-life-in-israel/#respondMon, 14 May 2018 13:46:50 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23464Shimon Redlich and Gabriel Shapiro immigrated to Israel as young men. Both have written engaging memoirs about their experiences in the Jewish state, which marks its 70th anniversary on May 14 by the Gregorian calendar.

Redlich, a Ukrainian Jew, arrived in Israel in 1950 by way of Poland. In A New Life in Israel (Academic Studies Press), he focuses on the kibbutz that would be his home for more than a year. Shapiro, a Russian Jew, immigrated to Israel in 1972. In Thanksgiving All Year Round (Academic Studies Press), he discusses his formative years in the Soviet Union and his six-year sojourn in Israel, which proved to be of great importance to him personally.

Shimon Redlich

Redlich, a history professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev for nearly 40 years, was born in Lwow in 1935 and was a child survivor of the Holocaust. After the war, he found himself in the Polish city of Lodz. On February 7, 1950, he and his mother landed in Haifa aboard the ship Galila and were met by relatives who had settled in the country in the 1920s and 1930s and had been among the founders of Kibbutz Merhavia in the Jezreel Valley.

As he points out, he and his mother made aliya in a year when 170,000 new immigrants set foot in Israel, a nation dedicated to absorbing newcomers. The majority were settled in 58 temporary transit camps known in Hebrew as maabarot. Kibbutzim attracted relatively few immigrants, but Redlich lived in Merhavia when the prestige of the kibbutz was at its peak.

The winter of 1950 was the harshest in decades, with Israel blanketed in snow from north to south. As he recalls in one of his earliest memories of the kibbutz, “People were walking at night in snow-covered, moonlit fields enchanted by views that reminded them of their old country.”

Kibbutz Merhavia

Merhavia, which had been established by East European Jews in the 1920s, had a profound effect on him. “It was there that I would actually turn into an Israeli. I was placed in the Merhavia boarding school in the early spring of 1950 and would remain there until the summer of 1951. However, the impact of these fifteen months was enormous.”

In his keenly observant book, Redlich recalls the kibbutz way of life and its personalities.

Boys and girls lived together in the same dormitory. “It was the first time I’d ever lived or slept with strangers. This was something completely new to me, both difficult and exciting. The dressing and undressing of the girls aroused me. I stared furtively at their firm young breasts.” He also had to accustom himself to communal showers.

He was issued standard kibbutz clothing: underwear, socks, pants, shirts, a sweater, an army-style jacket and a kova tembel, the fool’s hat, to protect himself from the sun.

Much to his disappointment, he discovered that the kibbutz had a negative attitude toward higher education.

Redlich’s pen portraits of kibbutzniks are candid.

He describes Meir Yaari, its most prominent member and the leader of the Kibbutz Haartzi movement, as a stubborn person who enjoyed the amenities of his position, who never forgave people who challenged him and who avoided cultivating close friendships. He has only kind words for Michal Bat Adam, who would become a leading Israeli film star.

Redlich left Merhavia to live with his mother in neighboring Afula, which started as the Arab hamlet of Fula and developed into “a rather small provincial town.” Settled in the mid-1920s by mainly Polish Jews, Afula grew with the influx of Jewish immigrants from Romania, Iraq and Yemen. “My years in Afula coincided with that period,” he notes.

“Comparing my first years in Israel with my postwar and post-Holocaust years in Lodz, it seems, perhaps surprisingly, that I was happier in Lodz than in Israel. My relative standing among my peers was much higher in Lodz than in either Merhavia or Lodz. In Lodz, I was the teacher’s pet. In Israel, I was just one of the bunch, if that. Only years later, when I started my academic studies and career, would my self-esteem recover itself.”

Redlich devotes a chapter to his army service. Inducted in August 1954, shortly after completing his high school matriculation exams, he writes of the trials — humiliation, isolation, lack of privacy and physical and psychological pressures — that he faced as a raw recruit. More to the point, he explains the role the Israeli army played in integrating new immigrants into society.

In 2009, he returned to Merhavia on a visit. “It was a pale imitation of the thriving place that lives on in my memory. It was now bleak and neglected.” In retrospect, Merhavia had both positive and negative aspects. he says, quoting various people. “One of the old timers spoke of modesty, extreme earnestness and restrained romanticism.” Still others, especially the younger generation, were more critical. “They mentioned the small-town mentality and the malicious gossip that affected relations among neighbors.”

He ends on a neutral note: “The era in Israel of which I am writing has passed. I hope that this book succeeds in presenting some features of society in the early years of the state, and that it bears witness to the adjustment of one young immigrant — one among thousands — to the realities of a new life in Israel.”

Shapiro’s life can be divided into three segments: 27 years in the Soviet Union, six years in Israel and 37 years and counting in the United States.

Deprived of elementary freedoms, he felt stifled in his homeland. “My existence under the totalitarian Soviet regime was further exacerbated by widespread antisemitism. As a result, from early childhood on, I was made to feel unwelcome in Soviet Russia. This sentiment compelled me to question my identity and to look for an alternative. Under the influence of the Zionist ideology, which I imbibed from my father and his close friends, I came to the realization that Israel … was my home, the country where I aspired to live.”

Gavriel Shapiro

While in Israel, he abandoned chemistry, the subject he had studied at Moscow University, and took a degree in Russian studies at the Hebrew University. “This degree became a stepping stone for my further education and development as a Slavist.” He then served in the Israeli army. Unable to find suitable employment in Israel, he forged a successful academic career at Cornell University in the United States. But he regularly returns to Israel for about two months at a time.

Shapiro’s father, an aircraft engineer, settled in Israel before his son. Yet tragically enough, he was killed in a terrorist attack in July 1989, leaving behind his wife, a physician who had not been keen to live in Israel.

Gabriel Shapiro, his parents and sister

Born in 1945, Shapiro aspired to be a doctor, but his parents were concerned that, as a Jew, he might be denied a place at medical school. Given the endemic antisemitism that plagued Jews, he never considered the Soviet Union as his home. “In my family, there was always a clear distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them.'”

As long as he remembers, his father talked about the possibility of going to Israel. The outbreak of the Six Day War in 1967 made them realize that their hearts and loyalty belonged to Israel. In the wake of that war, there was an upsurge of antisemitism. “The Soviet authorities decided to turn the screws on their own Jews,” he says. And Zionism was equated with fascism.

Shapiro applied for an exist visa, but was refused. Finally, on November 3, 1972, he made it to Israel. It was, for him, a euphoric moment. He greatly enjoyed living in Israel, particularly in Jerusalem, and sought to blend in.

In 1983, as he completed his PhD, he was offered a lectureship at Illinois State University. He accepted it, but hoped to eventually obtain a similar position in Israel. “This wish of mine, regrettably, never materialized,” he muses. In the meantime, he notes, his first marriage to an American broke up.

Shapiro taught at Cornell for the next three decades. “When I was growing up in Soviet Russia, never did I imagine in my wildest dreams that I would be spending most of my adult life outside the Iron Curtain and benefiting from the liberties and freedoms accorded to people in the democratic societies of Israel and the United States,” he observes, nicely rounding out Thanksgiving All Year Round.

]]>http://sheldonkirshner.com/memoirs-of-life-in-israel/feed/0A Film Portrait of Ruth Bader Ginsburghttp://sheldonkirshner.com/a-film-portrait-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
http://sheldonkirshner.com/a-film-portrait-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/#respondSat, 12 May 2018 18:47:03 +0000http://sheldonkirshner.com/?p=23365As a lawyer and as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a force for constructive change in the United States since the 1970s. “She created a legal landscape,” says one of her admirers in RBG, an upbeat and bracing documentary by Julie Cohen and Betsy West due to open in Canada on May 18. “She is the closest thing to a superhero I know,” observes women’s rights crusader Gloria Steinem.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Ginsburg, now 85, helped liberate American women from the shackles of inequality. Case by case, she chipped away at deeply ingrained discriminatory laws, customs and conventions that held women back from their rightful place in society.

Only the second woman after Sandra Day O’Connor to sit on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg comes across as a shy, reserved, resolute person. The film, composed of home movies, photographs, file footage and interviews, presents her as a quiet and effective reformer whose impact has been profound.

Ginsburg as a young woman

The scion of Russian Jewish immigrants who lacked the means to attend university but who valued higher education, Ginsburg was a bright child who radiated intelligence and magnetism and eschewed small talk. That, at least, is how she is fondly remembered by school friends from Brooklyn, a borough of New York City where she was born and raised.

Ginsburg appears to have had two important personal relationships. She was very close to her mother, who dispensed good advice on people management. She died when Ginsburg was only 17. “I wish I had her longer,” she muses. Ginsburg also lucked out in her selection of a husband. Marty, her spouse for more than 50 years, was her soulmate and cheerleader. He passed away in 2010.

Ginsburg chats with granddaughter Clara

“Marty was the first boy who cared I had a brain,” she recalls. “He never regarded me as a threat.”

They met at Cornell University, fell in love and married.

Ginsburg was the mother of a 14-month-old infant when she arrived to attend Harvard law school in 1956. One of nine women in a class of more than 500 men, she was dogged by the uncomfortable feeling of being watched. Marty, who would be an eminent tax lawyer, supported her career path unreservedly.

At Harvard, Ginsburg was a superb student. But due to a job Marty accepted in New York City, she transferred to Columbia University to finish her law degree. Much to her disappointment, she could not find a position at a law firm. “I became a lawyer when women were not wanted,” she says matter of factly.

Ginsburg as an up-and-coming lawyer

As a law professor and lawyer in private practice, she devoted herself to fighting gender discrimination, winning a series of seminal Supreme Court cases that the film examines in some detail.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. In 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated her for the Supreme Court. Marty played a key role in advocating for her appointment. Confirmed by a margin of 96-3, she was the 107th associate justice to sit on the high court.

President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1980

As the court turned more conservative, she became one of its liberal dissenters. Despite her ideological leanings, she formed a friendship with one of its most right-wing members, the late Antonin Scalia.

Ginsburg at work

Two bouts with cancer since 1999 have not affected her attendance at court proceedings. But old age is creeping up. In 2015, she was caught nodding off during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address. Nonetheless, she has no immediate intention of retiring. “I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam,” she told an interviewer recently.

Ginsburg is a careful person, but she slipped in 2016. In an unguarded moment, she described Donald Trump, then a presidential contender, as a “faker.” Quickly recognizing her comment as inappropriate, she apologized.

As RBG suggests, it was one of the very few known mistakes she has ever made in a brilliant career.